Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

conflict

As war looms in Lebanon, will Canada be forced once again to evacuate “citizens of convenience?”: J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon, but we must consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have.

Canada is preparing to evacuate Canadian citizens from Lebanon in case the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the well-armed, Iranian-backed terrorist organization, escalates into a full-blown war. Most of Lebanon’s southern border towns have been evacuated as have the kibbutzim and villages of Israel’s north. There are estimates that as many as 75,000 Canadian citizens may be living in or visiting Lebanon.

There is a precedent for an evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a 34-day war that killed some 1,300 Lebanese and 165 Israelis and displaced 1.5 million residents of the two countries. The war ended after Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which called for, among other things, an immediate ceasefire, and the withdrawal of all combatants from southern Lebanon.

There were as many as 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon at the time and Canada moved to get as many of its citizens it could reach – and who wanted to be evacuated – out to Cyprus or Turkey and on to Canada. Some 14,000 were evacuated by air or by sea at a cost that was later reported to be $94 million.

Almost no one asked in 2006 what were the obligations of the Canadian government to citizens living abroad. Many of these citizens had lived in Lebanon for decades, their only link to Canada being their passport. Consider Rasha Solti, who wrote in the Globe and Mail on July 22, 2006: “I hold a Canadian passport, I was born in Toronto when my parents were students there. I have never gone back. I left at age 2.” Solti’s passport was her escape route to Canada if she ever needed it. Did Canada owe her and others like her anything? And while there are no hard numbers, as many as 7,000 of the evacuees reportedly returned to Lebanon after the cessation of fighting.

Obviously, the government has some responsibility to assist Canadians caught up in a conflict. But what about citizens of convenience – those who renew their Canadian passports every five or ten years without visiting, let alone living, in Canada? What duty does Canada have to help Canadian passport holders who have not resided in or paid taxes to Canada for decades – if ever?

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studied the 2006 evacuation and its report in May 2007 touched on this issue. A Department of Foreign Affairs official responsible for consular affairs told the Committee that “Until further notice, within the framework of the consular service, a Canadian is a Canadian; the rule is very clear. However, you are right, the debate has been launched and the discussion will take place.”

Well, no real public discussion took place. There were, however, conversations within the federal government, and the nation’s Citizenship Act has been amended several times since 2006. But there are still no residency requirements to remain a citizen. Should there be?

An amendment in 2009 instituted the “first generation limitation” that restricted the scope of those eligible for Canadian citizenship for the future. Citizenship by descent would henceforth be limited to one generation born outside Canada. This law was subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023, and the government now has a bill before Parliament that will grant citizenship to eligible foreign nationals whose parent(s) have a substantial connection to Canada and are impacted by the first generation limitation.

In other words – unless the courts subsequently define “a substantial connection” very narrowly – Canadian citizenship can be passed on for generations to those living abroad.

This summer Ottawa is again preparing to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon. The government has bolstered its embassy staff in Beirut and deployed Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Cyprus where they are working with allied nations to coordinate evacuation planning. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Embassy in Beirut have all urged Canadians to leave at once. It’s unknown how many people have taken this advice, but clearly Canada is preparing for a major evacuation if the fighting escalates.

Is it not long past time for Canada to consider what rights are appropriate for those who choose to live abroad? Many permanent residents living outside Canada, as in Lebanon, hold dual citizenship. Should they require genuine ties in or to our country to retain their citizenship and their passports?

Before 1977, Canadians who acquired another nation’s citizenship, except by marriage, lost their Canadian status. Until 1973, Canada required those who wanted its citizenship to renounce their former allegiance. A 1993 parliamentary committee questioned the meaning of loyalty when people held dual citizenship, and it suggested that this devalued the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The committee, in fact, recommended that a Canadian who voluntarily acquired another citizenship should cease to be a Canadian. What the courts might to say to efforts to implement such measures today is unknown.

Still, the Foreign Affairs official in 2006 was correct: A Canadian is a Canadian. But perhaps there is another way to limit the use of our passports as a public convenience. In the United States, all Americans, no matter where they live or how many passports they carry, must file an income tax return as a fundamental continuing obligation of citizenship. Essentially, the US says that those who want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship must help to pay the costs of running the government, and those who don’t want to pay must renounce their American citizenship. This applies to Americans living in Canada.

Washington’s regulation is both reasonable and right. Holding a US passport carries certain obligations. We need to find ways to impose similar obligations on Canadian passport holders living abroad.

In Yann Martel’s famous phrase, Canada is the greatest hotel on earth. He meant that as praise, but to many it has come to imply that they can enjoy the benefits of this country without sharing in the duties and obligations of citizenship. In other words, you can check in, enjoy the facilities, and then check out without paying the bill.

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon. But now it is time to consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have. It’s time to fully examine whether dual (or triple or multiple) passport holders can remain Canadian citizens. Time at last for a hard look at what Canadian citizenship means in the 21st century.


J.L. Granatstein taught Canadian history for 30 years and was director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum. He sits on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Research Advisory Board.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Second Wave Of Blasts Sweep Through Lebanon As Hezbollah Walkie-Talkies Suddenly Explode

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jake Smith

A second wave of blasts swept through Lebanon on Wednesday as more communication devices used by Hezbollah suddenly exploded, according to several reports.

Hand-held radios used by Hezbollah terrorists abruptly exploded in southern Lebanon and the country’s capital of Beirut on Wednesday, according to Reuters. It marks yet another blow to Hezbollah, which the day prior had a large number of its terrorist fighters’ pager devices abruptly explode, causing thousands of injuries.

The devices that detonated on Wednesday appeared to be walkie-talkie devices rather than pagers, according to The Wall Street Journal. The exact size and scope of the attack are still unclear, but at least nine people have been killed and 300 have been injured, The Associated Press reported.

#Hezbollah walkie talkie explodes at a funeral today in #Lebanon after yesterday’s exploding Hezbollah pagers. pic.twitter.com/b8TIfUUBKq

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) September 18, 2024

Israel is believed to be behind the coordinated and remote attack on Tuesday, though that has not been confirmed by the Israeli or U.S. governments, according to multiple reports. Explosive devices were reportedly planted into the pagers before they made their way out of a supply and manufacturing chain — which initially was suspected to be in Taiwan — and were shipped to Hezbollah in recent months, according to American and other officials who spoke to The New York Times.

The Taiwanese company in question has denied that it produced the pagers, saying that they were manufactured under license by a company based in Hungary, according to Reuters.

The walkie-talkies that detonated on Wednesday were reportedly also shipped to Hezbollah in recent months, a security source told Reuters.

Significant damage appears to have been made to a motorcycle after a Hezbollah radio exploded. pic.twitter.com/57JfoWDmaQ

— Joe Truzman (@JoeTruzman) September 18, 2024

The official Lebanese news agency also reported that a number of home solar energy systems exploded in Beirut on Wednesday, though it’s unclear whether it was connected to the string of walkie-talkie detonations, according to multiple reports.

Hezbollah has frequently attacked Israel since Oct. 7, the date Hamas invaded Israel and killed roughly 1,200 people. The Hezbollah attacks have created a turbulent situation along the Israeli-Lebanese border and prompted Israeli forces to launch cross-border counterattacks.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly told a U.S. envoy on Monday that the time for a diplomatic solution had “passed because Hezbollah continues to tie itself to Hamas and refuses to end the conflict,” according to Axios.

Continue Reading

conflict

With Only Months Left In Term, Biden Is Starting To Run Out Of Options In Russia-Ukraine War

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jake Smith

 

As the clock ticks down to January — the end of President Joe Biden’s sole term — the Biden-Harris administration is trying to figure out how to aid Ukraine against Russia with limited and dwindling options.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than two years, and though the Biden administration has devoted over $175 billion in economic and military aid to help Ukraine, it has done little to shift the tides in Kyiv’s favor. The Biden administration, unlikely to receive any more funding for aid from Congress, is looking at alternative choices including loosening weapons restrictions and allowing Ukraine to strike further inside of Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new policy would only apply to European and other Western weapons, not U.S. systems, according to multiple reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted on Wednesday that such a move was on the table and strongly being considered.

Lifting the restrictions would represent a major shift in approach from the Biden administration, which has been wary of allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons for deep strikes inside Russia up to this point.

But Ukraine is likely to want more from the Biden administration than being allowed to use European weapons for long-range strikes. Specifically, Ukraine wants to use American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russia, given the high quality and range of the system, though the administration may be more unlikely to grant that request.

Besides loosening weapons restrictions, the administration has few other options. Though Biden was able to sign off on a congressionally approved $60 billion aid package for Ukraine in April, Congress isn’t expected to grant any more funding for the war between now and January, limiting the amount of assistance the administration can provide.

The Russia-Ukraine war has largely stalled out, with neither side conceding substantial territory to the other, although Ukrainian forces have recently made a surprising incursion into southern Russia and captured hundreds of miles of territory.

“They see this as part of their strategy to defend themselves, to develop leverage,” the senior administration told the WSJ.

Behind closed doors, however, administration officials are worried that Ukraine is dedicating too many forces to the incursion and stretching thin its forces trying to hold the front line against Russia, according to the WSJ. Russian forces have also begun a counteroffensive against Ukrainians spearheading an incursion, risking further escalation in the war.

Biden’s top aides realize the odds that Ukraine can secure a military victory against Russia by January are near zero, according to the WSJ. The Biden administration is not pressuring Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, even though some lawmakers and national security experts believe that is the only way to end the war.

Instead, the administration is choosing to let Kyiv dictate war plans and “improve Ukraine’s strategic position to the greatest extent possible between now and the end of the term,” one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the matter, told the WSJ.

The Biden administration has been under scrutiny for its handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, with critics fearing that there is no strategy to end the war or push Ukraine toward a military victory, which itself seems unlikely. The U.S. has slowly become more involved in the war but it has done little to move the needle while Ukraine’s manpower continues to be exhausted.

The administration’s strategy “sounds an awful lot like a recipe for another endless war [because it is] unable to send enough weapons to make a decisive difference on the battlefield, and they don’t have a clear sense of what the endgame should be,” Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the WSJ.

Continue Reading

Trending

X